Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on the Acquisition of English Articles

& Translation Studies Journal homepage: http://www.eltsjournal.org Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on the Acquisition of English Articles [PP: 23-3

Trang 1

& Translation Studies

Journal homepage: http://www.eltsjournal.org

Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks on the Acquisition of

English Articles

[PP: 23-34 ]

Shirin Abadikhah

Department of English Language and Literature Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

University of Mazandaran

Babolsar, Iran

Behdad Harsini

Shokouh Language Institute

Sari, Iran ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History

The paper received

on: 20/07/2014

Accepted after

peer-review on:

05/08/2014

Published on:

01/09/2014

The use of pair and small group work has been supported within the interactionist and sociocultural theories of learning It is assumed that collaboration would lead to second language acquisition Inspired by these theoretical claims, the present study investigates the effects of two output tasks on the acquisition of English articles Thirty-one EFL learners, divided into two groups of pairs and individuals, participated in this study All participants were administered a pretest and a post-test and completed two output tasks (cloze and text-editing) during four sessions The results were indicative of no significant difference in the acquisition of English articles between the two groups of the study However, a significant difference was found for the effect of task types

Keywords:

Collaborative

Output Tasks;

Sociocultural theory;

English Article; Text

Editing; Cloze

Cit e this article as: Abadikhah, Shirin & Harsini, Behdad (2014) Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and

Individual Output Tasks on the Acquisition of English Articles International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies 2(3), 23-34 Retrieved from http://www.eltsjournal.org

Trang 2

Cite this article as: Abadikhah, Shirin & Harsini, Behdad (2014) Comparing the Effects of Collaborative and

Recent studies in SLA have supported

the use of collaborative output tasks in L2

classrooms (Colina & Garcia-Mayo 2007,

Donato 1994, Kim 2008, Kowal & Swain

1994, Nassaji & Tian 2010, Storch 1999,

2002, 2007, Storch & Wigglesworth 2007,

Swain 1995, 1998, Swain & Lapkin 1995,

1998, 2001) The role of output in L2 learning

came into vogue following the observation of

inaccurate performance of learners in

immersion and content-based language

classrooms (Nassaji & Tian 2010) In these

classrooms, English L1 students were

exposed to a lot of meaning-based input in

French Swain and her colleagues found that

although the majority of these students

achieve native-like proficiency in

comprehending L2, their productive abilities,

particularly in morphological and syntactic

accuracy remain far from native-like norms

(Harley & Swain 1984, Swain 1985) Swain

(1985) argued that the reason why these

learners are weak at morpho-syntactic areas is

that they are not adequately engaged in

producing L2 Considering the inadequacies

of input-based instruction, she proposed that

language production plays a significant role in

L2 acquisition She argued that output

provides a unique opportunity for the use of

linguistic resources, allowing the learners to

test their hypotheses about the L2 and

encouraging them to move from semantic to

syntactic processing Later Swain (2000)

revised the output hypothesis and proposed

that language learning occurs in interactive

dialogic production She stated that while

interacting in a dialogue, pairs of learners

draw attention to problematic areas in their

interlanguage and verbalize alternative

solutions

To provide empirical support for the

use of pair work in ESL classes, several

studies investigated the role of collaborative output tasks in L2 development (e.g., Abadikhah 2012, Abadikhah & Shahriyarpour 2012, Colina & Garcia-Mayo

2007, Donato 1994, Kim 2008, Kinsella 1996, Nassaji & Tian 2010, Storch 1999, 2002,

2007, Storch & Wigglesworth 2007) Although many studies have been conducted, comparing pair-work and individual work, it

is still not clear whether some linguistic features benefit from pair work interaction Compared to other linguistic features, English articles (definite and indefinite) were found to

be more challenging for Iranian EFL learners, since they frequently produced them inaccurately in their compositions on the institute’s placement test With this background, this study aimed to explore the role of collaborative output tasks in enhancing the accuracy and learning of articles in English

The use of pair and small group work has been supported within the interactionist and sociocultural theories of learning According to Ellis (2005), the studies conducted within the theoretical framework of Long’s (1983) ‘interaction hypothesis’, mainly centered on negotiation of meaning which was fostered during pair and group work They indicated that using proper tasks would increase the opportunities for interaction and negotiation of meaning Nevertheless, the results of these studies were not indicative of interlanguage development More recent studies have adopted a sociocultural perspective (SCT) which urges the learners to produce output collaboratively (Swain & Lapkin 1998) Originated in the works of Vygotsky (1978, 1986), SCT is based on the concept that human activities occur in cultural contexts and are mediated by

Trang 3

language and other symbolic systems, and can

be best appreciated when explored in their

historical development (John-Steiner &

Holbrook 1996) One major tenet of SCT

stated above is the social nature of human

development, that is, learning and cognitive

development of individuals have their origins

in social sources Lantolf (2000) elaborated

more on this concept and stated that “at first

the activity of the individuals is organized and

regulated (i.e mediated) by others, but

eventually, in normal development, we come

to organize and regulate our own mental and

physical activity through the appropriation of

the regulatory means employed by others”

(pp 13-14)

Adopting SCT, Swain (2000) used the

term ‘collaborative dialogue’ to refer to the

interaction in which a speaker (expert or

novice) helps another speaker (novice) to do

an activity which they are unable to do

individually (Ellis, 2008) It is within the

collaborative classrooms that teachers and

students co-construct a context in which

learning is optimized Unlike the traditional

classrooms where teachers are the only source

of knowledge, in collaborative classrooms,

the teacher is the more knowledgeable person

who assists students in constructing

knowledge This gained knowledge results

from collaboration between teachers and

students and also between the students

themselves In practice, what happens in

collaborative classrooms is that the personal

experiences and inclinations of the

interlocutors are taken into consideration

As claimed in SCT, the acquisition of

the linguistic features first happens on an

intermental plane and then is internalized

through subsequent individual performance

on an intramental plane, within the individual

It follows that the use of pair and small group

work which involves both of the learners in

the co-construction of meaning would enhance their performance during the subsequent encounters with these tasks individually Storch and Wigglesworth (2007) have also stated that interaction and knowledge co-construction can be promoted

in tasks that require learners to participate in group and pair-work The question now is whether pairs of learners interacting to complete a task would perform better than individual learners and would acquire the knowledge co-constructed during their interactions

Adopting SCT perspective, and considering novice learners, who have not yet internalized some linguistic features, it can be assumed that pairs of learners would benefit more in learning than individuals who are not collaborating in this process

Collaborative and Individual Output Tasks

With regard to the use of pair work, there was a tendency to examine different types of tasks, especially collaborative output tasks after the advance of the ‘output hypothesis’ by Swain (1995) A plethora of studies can be found comparing pair/small group work and individual work (Nassaji & Tian 2010, Storch 1999, Tocalli-Beller & Swain 2007) However, there are relatively very few studies within this area that focus on the effect of task type on the acquisition of some linguistic features such as English article system

Donato (1994) analyzed protocols of three students in a one-hour-session in which students planned for an oral activity that would take place the next week He investigated the transcripts of the planning session in search of examples of scaffolding,

a situation in social interaction in which a more knowledgeable participant provides a supportive environment for the novice learner

Trang 4

to extend his knowledge of the language Out

of 32 cases of collective scaffolding observed

in the planning session, 75 % was used

correctly one week later, which is an

indication of learning

Storch (1999) conducted a small-scale

study which required eight ESL learners to

complete three different types of

grammar-focused exercises i.e cloze, text

reconstruction, and short composition in two

sessions Each type of exercise had two

versions, one to be completed individually

and the other in self-selected pairs The

linguistic features targeted in the study were

articles, verb tense/aspect choice and

formation, derivational morphology, and

nominal morphology In the first session, they

completed a cloze exercise and a composition

individually and a text reconstruction task in

pairs In the second session, two days later,

they performed a text reconstruction task

individually and a cloze exercise and a

composition in pairs The results suggested

that collaboration had a positive effect on

overall grammatical accuracy, but tended to

vary with specific grammatical items, that is,

collaboration reduced the accuracy of article

use on the cloze exercise which focused on

grammatical accuracy more overtly, but with

regard to the text reconstruction and

composition, which lend students more choice

over grammatical decisions, the use of article

was more accurate

Swain and Lapkin (2001) explored the

effect of task type on the learning and

accuracy of two Grade 8 mixed-ability French

immersion classes (65 students in total) The

data were gathered over a five-week period

while the learners were working on two

collaborative output tasks: dictogloss and

jigsaw After transcribing the data,

tailor-made posttests were developed based on the

language-related episodes (LREs) LREs were

defined as "any part of a dialogue when the students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or correct themselves or others" (Swain & Lapkin 1998, p 326) By analyzing the LREs, they found that the participants produced fewer LREs in the dictogloss compared to the jigsaw but greater accuracy and more complex language were obtained in the dictogloss Contrary to their expectations, they found no significant difference in the degree to which the tasks drew participants’ attention to the formal aspects of the language

McDonough (2004) conducted an investigation in which sixteen Thai EFL learners worked on pair and small group oral communication activities The findings indicated that more participation during pair and small group activities led to improved production of the target form; however, they perceived the activities to be useless for learning explicit structural aspects of the language McDonough expressed concern over learners not benefiting from language learning opportunities during pair and small group work since they focused on achieving the goals of the oral activities rather than the language itself

Colina and Garcia-Mayo (2007) compared the effectiveness of three task types (jigsaw, dictogloss and text reconstruction) in fostering focus on form and metatalk among low-proficiency students Twenty-four first year undergraduate students at the elementary level participated in the study Twelve self-selected pairs were divided into three groups and each group consisting of four pairs completed one task The same passage was used to design the three tasks The pairs' dialogues were recorded and then transcribed

in order to identify LREs The results indicated that all task types generated many

Trang 5

LREs with text reconstruction producing the

largest number The most discussed linguistic

features during the tasks were determiners,

connectors, and spelling The linguistic

features most talked about during the text

reconstruction task were articles, passive

voice, prepositions, subject-verb agreement,

and verb form

The next issue was brought about by

the dichotomy of uptake and acquisition

proposed by Reinders (2009) Reinders

operationally defined acquisition as

“improved performance on a timed and an

untimed grammaticality judgment test from

pre-test to post-test” and uptake “as correct

supply of the target structure during

completion of the treatments” (p 203) In this

study, three types of output tasks including

dictation, individual text reconstruction and

collaborative text reconstruction were put into

investigation in order to examine the effect of

each task on the uptake and acquisition of the

negative adverbs in English Twenty-eight

participants took part in one pretest session,

three treatment sessions, and two posttest

sessions The three tasks differed regarding

their complexity and cognitive demand,

whether they were completed individually or

collaboratively and the amount of text to be

produced by the participants The results of

the study were indicative of uptake across the

three tasks during the treatment sessions; the

uptake of the participants in dictation and

collaborative text reconstruction was higher

than that in the individual reconstruction On

the other hand, no differences were found in

the acquisition of negative adverbs in English

across the three task types Nassaji and Tian

(2010) examined the effectiveness of two

types of collaborative output tasks

(reconstruction cloze task and reconstruction

editing task) on learning English phrasal

verbs Twenty-six students in two intact

low-intermediate adult ESL classrooms, who were taught by the same instructor with the same instructional goals and curriculum, participated in the study Sixteen English phrasal verbs were selected as the target words The study used a pretest, a treatment, and a four-day delayed posttest In the pretest and posttest, the learners' knowledge of phrasal verbs was measured using

‘vocabulary knowledge scale’ (VKS) Prior to completing the tasks, the learners received mini-lessons on target words and the tasks Two cloze tasks and two editing tasks (one version of each was done collaboratively and the other individually) were completed in two cycles over a period of two weeks The study enjoyed a within-subject design, that is, all the students completed both types of tasks both collaboratively and individually The order of the task types was also counterbalanced to remove the effect of task type Data analysis revealed that performing the tasks collaboratively (in pairs) led to a greater accuracy in during-task performance than when performing them individually However, by considering pretest and posttest, collaborative tasks did not result in significantly greater degrees of vocabulary knowledge than individual tasks Regarding the effect of task type, the editing tasks were more effective than the cloze tasks in fostering interaction and learning

Baleghizadeh (2010) investigated the impact of peer interaction during an editing task on EFL learning in Iran Sixty-two university students majoring in English literature participated in the study and were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups Learners' proficiency level was determined through a paper-based version of the TOEFL test The task employed in this study was a text editing task which contained grammatical errors featuring

Trang 6

the use of articles, subordinating conjunctions

and prepositions The experimental group

consisting of forty students performed the

activity in self-selected pairs, while twenty

two students in the control group performed

the editing task individually The results

showed that students’ overall performance

significantly improved when they

collaborated in pairs than when they did the

activity on their own Yet, this improvement

was not persistent in different linguistic

features Although pair-work improved

learners' performance in case of articles and

subordinate conjunctions, this fact was not

observable for prepositions

Considering the theoretical support and

the empirical evidence found in favor of pair

work and on the other hand, the contradictory

findings, suggesting that not all grammatical

items and structures benefit from pair work

interaction, the present study aims to explore

the effect of pair work and task type on the

grammatical accuracy of English articles

produced by EFL learners This study is going

to address the following research questions:

1) Is there any significant difference in

learning English articles between the

individuals and pairs of learners completing

output tasks?

2) What are the effects of task type (text

editing and cloze) on accurate production of

English articles?

3 Methodology

3.1 Participants

Thirty-one low-intermediate students in

a private language institute (Shokouh, Sari)

participated in this study The level of the

participants was determined through

institute's placement test, so the regular

classes of the institute enjoy homogeneous

students From the eight classes at low

intermediate level, two classes consisting of

thirty one students were randomly chosen as

the individual and collaborative groups The learners (both males and females) were within the age-range of 19 to 27 They took part in a pretest, two treatment sessions and a post-test

3.2 Procedure

The present study employed two groups

of learners: one group consisting of 9 pairs of learners (n=18) interacting with each other and performing the tasks by the assistance of their peers, and a second group (n=13) completing the tasks individually using their own available resources The first session was devoted to the pre-test, in which all participants took part and individually completed two tasks (cloze and editing) in thirty minutes Next, one of the two groups was randomly assigned as the collaborative group They were asked to select their peers

to work on two tasks To ensure their familiarity with pair work, a training session was also provided for this group Both groups took part in two treatment sessions with a one week interval More specifically, during the second session, the two groups completed a cloze task, and during the third session, they completed an editing task, both in fifteen minutes In the fourth session, a post-test was administered to all participants, in which they completed the same tasks as in the pretest session in 30 minutes There was a one week interval between each session

3.3 Instruments

The two tasks employed in this study were text editing and cloze tasks Both tasks are grammar-focused tasks that require written output These tasks were chosen because we observed that EFL students are reluctant to work in pairs on de-contextualized grammar-focused drills or more demanding tasks such as dictogloss It was also inspired by the contradictory findings in the previous body of research using these tasks as their material An earlier

Trang 7

study by Storch (1998) showed that the

text-editing task requires learners to notice

grammatical and lexical features of L2 Cloze

task is a traditional exercise that measures the

overall language proficiency of the students

Overall, four different tasks were used in the

current study: a cloze and a text editing were

used for the pretest and posttest sessions Two

additional tasks (another cloze and text

editing) were also employed for the treatment

sessions In addition to English articles, the

tasks used in the pretest targeted another

linguistic feature (verb tense/aspect) so that

the participants do not focus on the target

form to fill their knowledge gap before the

treatment sessions In scoring the tasks and

tests, a learner’s response was considered as

correct if the appropriate target form was

provided in the slots of the cloze task In the

case of the editing task, they were required to

spot and edit the errors in the text in order to obtain a correct score Once the participants’ scores were tabulated in the two different groups, tests of normality were conducted to ensure the normality of the data Next, quantitative method of analysis was used to track the differences in their attainment of the target linguistic feature Using SPSS software, the participants’ scores were compared across tasks and in different occasions

The first research question addressed the differences in the learning of English articles between the two groups of learners To this end, the overall test scores of the participants

in the pretest and posttest sessions were compared Table 1 shows the statistical description of the participants’ scores on both tests

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Groups Pretest (%) Posttest (%)

N Mean SD Mean SD

Individual

Pair

13

18

54.17 9.92 49.56 13.66

56.27 13.70 50.77 13.35

As can be seen, the mean scores of the

pair and the individual groups are slightly

different in the pre-test session; to make sure

that the groups did not differ before starting

the treatment sessions, their mean scores in

the pretest were compared using an

independent samples t-test The results of this

analysis showed no significant difference

(p=.330), indicating that the study enjoyed a

homogeneous population prior to the

treatment (p<.05)

The next set of analyses concerned the scores

of the two groups on the posttest session As

mentioned before, we employed two different

tasks (editing and cloze tasks) both on the

pretest and posttest sessions Therefore, similar to the analysis of the pretest, the overall test scores of the participants in the posttest were calculated and compared Table:1 indicates that the learners in both groups progressed from the pretest to the posttest The statistical description on this table shows a slight improvement for the pair group from the pretest to post-test (pre-test mean =49.56, post-test mean=50.77) However, if we meticulously detect these slight differences, again the individual group made an imperceptible more progress than the pair group (pre-test mean=54.17, post-test mean=56.27) In order to find out if there is any significant difference between the groups, the mean scores of the groups were compared

Trang 8

using another t-test The result of this test

indicated no significant difference between

the study groups (t=.790, p= 218), indicating

that the condition (pair or individual) may

have no effect on learning English articles

The next factor which may have an

effect in the grammatical accuracy of target

linguistic features is the task type; for

instance, Storch (1999) employed three

different tasks (cloze, composition and text

reconstruction), each of which targeted four

linguistic features The results of her study

suggested an overall positive effect on

grammatical accuracy despite a negative

effect for collaboration on the use of articles

in cloze task On the other hand, the editing task in Baleghizadeh’s (2010) study showed a positive effect for the use of pair work in accurate production of articles Therefore, the assumption that different tasks may have mixed effects on the grammatical accuracy of English articles was addressed in our second research question To this end, the learners’ average accuracy scores obtained in each task during the pretest and posttest were calculated The descriptive statistics for the participants’ scores in both tasks are

presented in Table 2 below

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the Tasks

Tasks N Mean (%) SD Pre-test cloze 31 53.47 15.44

editing 31 47.19 12.94 Post-test cloze 31 56.02 14.01

editing 31 50.48 15.02

On the basis of the descriptive statistics

presented in Table 2, the overall task

performance is an indication of the progress

from the pretest to the posttest, though

regarding the task type in each session (i.e

pretest and posttest), the cloze task is

considerably more accurate than the editing

task

Using paired samples t-test, the means of the two tasks in both tests were compared to see

if a significant difference exists between the tasks regarding the accurate production of articles Table 3 shows a significant effect for task type on the performance of the

participants in the pretest session (p=.019)

Table 3 Paired Samples t-test

Mean difference Std Error Mean t df sig Cloze & Editing

Pretest

6.279 2.575 2.438 30 019

Cloze & Editing

Posttest

5.544 2.376 2.333 30 024

p<.05

From the table above, we can also see

that the comparison of the mean scores of

cloze and editing tasks during posttest shows

a significant difference (p=.024), indicating

the effect of task type on the performance of

the learners This means that all participants significantly performed more accurately in the cloze task compared to the editing task

As the results of the analysis indicate, there seems to be no superior effect of pair

Trang 9

work on learning English articles The

findings of the present study are in line with

the results of some of the previous studies

which targeted the use of articles and no

significant difference was observed in the

performance of the pairs and individuals For

instance, Storch (1999) reported a similar

finding indicating that the use of pair work,

despite enhancing the performance of her

participants in some linguistic features,

reduced the accuracy of article use on the

cloze task This finding is also in line with

Nassaji and Tian’s (2010) study, indicating

that no learning occurred from the pretest to

posttest and no differences were observed

between the individuals and the pairs

There are several justifications for the

result of this study; one of them may be what

Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) refer to as the

negative feedback that may come up during

pair and small group work They argued that

the negative feedback in pair and small group

work may inhibit reliance on self in

subsequent performance Another justification

for this finding may be the problem expressed

by Ellis (2005) and other researchers over the

use of pair and small group work such as not

focusing on form on the part of the learners

(for example, Williams, 2001) Some students

find it more humiliating to make mistakes in

front of their classmates than in front of their

teachers (Prabhu, 1987) and student peers are

not good models Ellis (2005) continues that

“social interaction between students does not

by itself guarantee either a successful

outcome for the task or the conditions that

promote language learning” (p.24)

5 Conclusion

The results of this study indicated no

significant difference between the individuals

and pairs of learners in the acquisition of

English articles after receiving two treatment

sessions Considering the level of students in

this study (low-intermediate), they may have provided each other with incorrect feedback The negative feedback that come up in some interactions may hinder the reliance on self in subsequent occasions and as McDonough (2004) and Kinsella (1996) pointed out, the fear of learning the wrong grammar during collaboration may spoil the social nature of learning Therefore, one implication for future studies being conducted on pair work interaction is to cast a cautious eye on the level of participants and include a mini-lesson prior to treatment sessions in order to expose learners to the correct linguistic forms In regard to the complexity of some linguistic features, it seems reasonable to have more explicit instructions on some linguistic features and in a long term process Working

in pairs for several consecutive sessions might

be more conducive to an accurate examination of such a complex linguistic feature as English article system

During our observations of some of the interactions, we noticed that some peers disregarded the language question popped up

by their less proficient peers and tried to accomplish the task by themselves Thus, the learning opportunities emerging during interactions in pair and small group work in which the participants talk about the language (Swain, 1995) were ignored and instead task completion was prioritized The same concern was articulated by McDonough (2004) and Foster (1998) who stated that “if students regard group work as a lighthearted activity and informal part of class, rather than as a pedagogical activity specifically designed to promote SLA, we can not be surprised if they are relaxed enough about communication problems to let them pass” (p 19) This draws attention to the fact that teachers and researchers may need to instruct participants

Trang 10

how to interact during collaborative activities

so that an effective collaboration occurs

The limitations of the current study include

the time budgeting and mixed gender of

participants The study was conducted over a

period of one month, including a pretest, two

treatment sessions, and a posttest Given the

fact that the study targeted a complex

linguistic feature, further research is

necessary to investigate the effects of output

tasks in a longitudinal design As to the

results of the current study and the previous

body of research, it seems rational to cast a

doubtful eye on the use of pair work in EFL

classes, at least in case of some linguistic

features (for example, articles) However,

with a small sample size, caution must be

applied as the findings might not be

transferrable to other contexts with larger

populations

About the Authors:

Shirin Abadikhah is an assistant professor of

TEFL at the University of Mazandaran Her

research interests include applied linguistics

and second language acquisition

Behdad Harsini holds an MA in TEFL from

the University of Mazandaran His research

interests include teaching grammatical

features and sociocultural theory

References

Abadikhah, S (2012) The effect of

mechanical and meaningful production of

output on learning English relative clauses

System, 40 (1), 129-143

Abadikhah, S & Shahriyarpour, A (2012)

The role of output, input enhancement and

collaborative output in the acquisition of

English passive forms Journal of Language

Teaching and Research, 3(4), 667-676

Aljaafreh, A & Lantolf, J (1994) Negative

feedback as regulation and second language

learning in the zone of proximal development

The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483

Baleghizadeh, S (2010) The impact of peer

interaction on an editing activity in EFL

classes Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1, 721-727

Colina, A A & García-Mayo, M.P (2007)

Attention to form across collaborative tasks

by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting

In M.P García-Mayo (Eds.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp 91–

116) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

Donato, R (1994) Collective scaffolding in

second language learning In J.P Lantolf &

A Gabriela (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp 33–59)

Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Ellis, R (2005) Instructed Second Language

Acquisition, A Literature Review Ministry of

Education, New Zealand

Ellis, R (2008) The Study of Second

University Press

Foster, P (1998) A Classroom Perspective

on the Negotiation of Meaning Applied Linguistics, 19, 1-23

Harley, B & Swain, M (1984) The

interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching In

A Davies, C Criper, A & Howatt (Eds.),

Interlanguage (pp 291-311) Edinburgh:

Edinburgh University Press

John-Steiner, V & Holbrook, M (1996) Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework

Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206

Kim, Y (2008) The contribution of

collaborative and individual tasks to the

acquisition of L2 vocabulary Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–30

Kinsella, K (1996) Designing group work

that supports and enhances diverse class-room

work style TESOL Journal, 6, 24–30

Định dạng
Số trang	12
Dung lượng	145,69 KB